Large-scale education in respiratory medicine: content versus delivery.

The respiratory literature, both written and in online formats, is growing exponentially. Capturing quality content, to meet the learning needs of those working in all fields of respiratory medicine and delivering it in a palatable, accessible format is challenging but paramount. In this article we discuss ways to determine the information content and review different methods of delivering this content to those who need it.

Digital health delivery in respiratory medicine: adjunct, replacement or cause for division?

Digital medicine is already well established in respiratory medicine through remote monitoring digital devices which are used in the day-to-day care of patients with asthma, COPD and sleep disorders. Image recognition software, deployed in thoracic radiology for many applications including lung cancer screening, is another application of digital medicine. Used as clinical decision support, this software will soon become part of day-to-day practice once concerns regarding generalisability have been addressed. Embodied in the electronic health record, digital medicine also plays a substantial role in the day-to-day clinical practice of respiratory medicine. Given the considerable work the electronic health record demands from clinicians, the next tangible impact of digital medicine may be artificial intelligence that aids administration, makes record keeping easier and facilitates better digital communication with patients. Future promises of digital medicine are based on their potential to analyse and characterise the large amounts of digital clinical data that are collected in routine care. Offering the potential to predict outcomes and personalise therapy, there is much to be excited by in this new epoch of innovation. However, these digital tools are by no means a silver bullet. It remains uncertain whether, let alone when, the promises of better models of personalisation and prediction will translate into clinically meaningful and cost-effective products for clinicians.

Real-world biologics response and super-response in the International Severe Asthma Registry cohort.

BACKGROUND: Biologic asthma therapies reduce exacerbations and long-term oral corticosteroids (LTOCS) use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, there are limited data on outcomes among patients ineligible for RCTs. Hence, we investigated responsiveness to biologics in a real-world population of adults with severe asthma. METHODS: Adults in the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR) with ≥24 weeks of follow-up were grouped into those who did, or did not, initiate biologics (anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, anti-IL4/13). Treatment responses were examined across four domains: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) increase by ≥100 mL, improved asthma control, annualized exacerbation rate (AER) reduction ≥50%, and any LTOCS dose reduction. Super-response criteria were: FEV1 increase by ≥500 mL, new well-controlled asthma, no exacerbations, and LTOCS cessation or tapering to ≤5 mg/day. RESULTS: 5.3% of ISAR patients met basic RCT inclusion criteria; 2116/8451 started biologics. Biologic initiators had worse baseline impairment than non-initiators, despite having similar biomarker levels. Half or more of initiators had treatment responses: 59% AER reduction, 54% FEV1 increase, 49% improved control, 49% reduced LTOCS, of which 32%, 19%, 30%, and 39%, respectively, were super-responses. Responses/super-responses were more frequent in biologic initiators than in non-initiators; nevertheless, ~40-50% of initiators did not meet response criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with severe asthma are ineligible for RCTs of biologic therapies. Biologics are initiated in patients who have worse baseline impairments than non-initiators despite similar biomarker levels. Although biologic initiators exhibited clinical responses and super-responses in all outcome domains, 40-50% did not meet the response criteria.

Voices of conference attendees: how should future hybrid conferences be designed?

BACKGROUND: With conference attendees having expressed preference for hybrid meeting formats (containing both in-person and virtual components), organisers are challenged to find the best combination of events for academic meetings. Better understanding what attendees prioritise in a hybrid conference should allow better planning and need fulfilment. METHODS: An online survey with closed and open-ended questions was distributed to registrants of an international virtual conference. Responses were then submitted to descriptive statistical analysis and directed content analysis. RESULTS: 823 surveys (Response Rate = 4.9%) were received. Of the 813 who expressed a preference, 56.9% (N = 463) desired hybrid conference formats in the future, 32.0% (N = 260) preferred in-person conferences and 11.1% (N = 90) preferred virtual conferences. Presuming a hybrid meeting could be adopted, 67.4% (461/684) preferred that virtual sessions take place both during the in-person conference and be spread throughout the year. To optimise in-person components of hybrid conferences, recommendations received from 503 respondents included: prioritising clinical skills sessions (26.2%, N = 132), live international expert presentations and discussions (15.7%, N = 79) and interaction between delegates (13.5%, N = 68). To optimise virtual components, recommendations received from 486 respondents included: prioritising a live streaming platform with international experts' presentations and discussions (24.3%, N = 118), clinical case discussions (19.8%, N = 96) and clinical update sessions (10.1%, N = 49). CONCLUSIONS: Attendees envision hybrid conferences in which organisers can enable the vital interaction between individuals during an in-person component (e.g., networking, viewing and improving clinical skills) while accessing virtual content at their convenience (e.g., online expert presentations with latest advancements, clinical case discussions and debates). Having accessible virtual sessions throughout the year, as well as live streaming during the in-person component of hybrid conferences, allows for opportunity to prolong learning beyond the conference days.

The Irish national chronic obstructive pulmonary disease quality improvement collaborative: an adaptive learning collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the the most common disease-specific cause of adult emergency hospital admissions in Ireland. Preliminary groundwork indicated that treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) in Ireland is not standardised between public hospitals. Applying Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough Series and Model for Improvement methodologies, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland designed and conducted a novel flexible and adaptive quality improvement (QI) collaborative which, using embedded evaluation, aimed to deliver QI teaching to enable teams to implement bespoke, locally applicable changes to improve and standardise acute COPD care at presentation, admission and discharge stages within their hospitals. METHODS: Eighteen teams from 19 hospitals across Ireland participated over 13 months. QI teaching was facilitated through inperson learning sessions, site visits, programme manager and coaching support. Teams submitted monthly anonymised patient data (n=10) for 22 measures of AECOPD care for ongoing QI evaluation. A mixed-methods survey was administered at the final learning session to retrospectively evaluate participants' experiences of QI learning and patient care changes. RESULTS: Participants reported that they learnt QI and improved patient care during the collaborative. Barriers included increased workload and lack of stakeholder buy-in. Statistically significant improvements (mean±SD) were seen for 'documented dyspnoea, eosinopenia, consolidation, acidaemia and atrial Fibrillation (DECAF) assessment' (7.3 (±14.4)% month(M)1 (n=15 sites); 49.6 (±37.7)% M13 (n=16 sites); p<0.001, 95% CI (14.3 to 66.7)), 'Documented diagnosis - spirometry' (42.5 (± 30.0)% M1 (n=16 sites); 69.1 (±29.9)% M13 (n=16 sites); p=0.0176, 95% CI 5.0 to 48.2) and 'inhaler technique review completed' (45.6 (± 34.1)% M1 (n=16 sites); 76.3 (±33.7)% M13 (n=16 sites); p=0.0131, 95% CI 10.0 to 65.0). 'First respiratory review' demonstrated improved standardisation. CONCLUSION: This flexible QI collaborative provided adaptive collaborative learning that facilitated participating teams to improve AECOPD patient care based on the unique context of their own hospitals. Findings indicate that involvement in the QI collaborative facilitated teams in achieving their improvements.

Feeling like the enemy: the emotion management and alienation of hospital doctors.

Introduction: Globally, an epidemic of psychological distress, burnout, and workforce attrition signify an acute deterioration in hospital doctors' relationship with their work-intensified by COVID-19. This deterioration is more complicated than individual responses to workplace stress, as it is heavily regulated by social, professional, and organizational structures. Moving past burnout as a discrete "outcome," we draw on theories of emotion management and alienation to analyze the strategies through which hospital doctors continue to provide care in the face of resource-constraints and psychological strain. Methods: We used Mobile Instant Messaging Ethnography (MIME), a novel form of remote ethnography comprising a long-term exchange of digital messages to elicit "live" reflections on work-life experiences and feelings. Results: The results delineate two primary emotion-management strategies-acquiescence and depersonalization-used by the hospital doctors to suppress negative feelings and emotions (e.g., anger, frustration, and guilt) stemming from the disconnect between professional norms of expertise and self-sacrifice, and organizational realities of impotence and self-preservation. Discussion: Illustrating the continued relevant of alienation, extending its application to doctors who disconnect to survive, we show how the socio-cultural ideals of the medical profession (expertise and self-sacrifice) are experienced through the emotion-management and self-estrangement of hospital doctors. Practically, the deterioration of hospital doctors' relationship with work is a threat to health systems and organizations. The paper highlights the importance of understanding the social structures and disconnects that shape this deteriorating relationship and the broad futility of self-care interventions embedded in work contexts of unrealized professional ideals, organizational resource deficits and unhappy doctors, patients, and families.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Inhaler Adherence Technologies in Difficult-to-Treat Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Digital inhalers can monitor inhaler usage, support difficult-to-treat asthma management, and inform step-up treatment decisions yet their economic value is unknown, hampering wide-scale implementation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of digital inhaler-based medication adherence management in difficult-to-treat asthma. METHODS: A model-based cost-utility analysis was performed. The Markov model structure was determined by biological and clinical understanding of asthma and was further informed by guideline-based assessment of model development. Internal and external validation was performed using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic (AdViSHE) tool. The INCA (Inhaler Compliance Assessment) Sun randomized clinical trial data were incorporated into the model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of digital inhalers. Several long-term clinical case scenarios were assessed (reduced number of exacerbations, increased asthma control, introduction of biosimilars [25% price-cut on biologics]). RESULTS: The long-term modelled cost-effectiveness based on a societal perspective indicated 1-year per-patient costs for digital inhalers and usual care (ie, regular inhalers) of €7,546 ($7,946) and €10,752 ($11,322), respectively, reflecting cost savings of €3,207 ($3,377) for digital inhalers. Using a 10-year intervention duration and time horizon resulted in cost savings of €26,309 ($27,703) for digital inhalers. In the first year, add-on biologic therapies accounted for 69% of the total costs in the usual care group and for 49% in the digital inhaler group. Scenario analyses indicated consistent cost savings ranging from €2,287 ($2,408) (introduction biosimilars) to €4,581 ($4,824) (increased control, decreased exacerbations). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, digital inhaler-based interventions can be cost-saving in the long-term by optimizing medication adherence and inhaler technique and reducing add-on biologic prescriptions.

What to expect from the ERS International Congress 2023.

This article provides an overview of the reasons to attend the 2023 ERS Congress, including a summary of the ECM session and the NEXT programme. https://bit.ly/46ghP4g.

Impact of Initiating Biologics in Patients With Severe Asthma on Long-Term Oral Corticosteroids or Frequent Rescue Steroids (GLITTER): Data From the International Severe Asthma Registry.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of biologics has neither been established in patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) nor been compared with effectiveness of continuing with HOCS alone. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of initiating biologics in a large, real-world cohort of adult patients with severe asthma and HOCS. METHODS: This was a propensity score-matched, prospective cohort study using data from the International Severe Asthma Registry. Between January 2015 and February 2021, patients with severe asthma and HOCS (long-term OCSs for ≥1 year or ≥4 courses of rescue OCSs within a 12-month period) were identified. Biologic initiators were identified and, using propensity scores, matched 1:1 with noninitiators. The impact of biologic initiation on asthma outcomes was assessed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: We identified 996 matched pairs of patients. Both groups improved over the 12-month follow-up period, but improvement was greater for biologic initiators. Biologic initiation was associated with a 72.9% reduction in the average number of exacerbations per year versus noninitiators (0.64 vs 2.06; rate ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.71]). Biologic initiators were 2.2 times more likely than noninitiators to take a daily long-term OCS dose of less than 5 mg (risk probability, 49.6% vs 22.5%; P = .002) and had a lower risk of asthma-related emergency department visits (relative risk, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.21-0.58]; rate ratio, 0.26 [0.14-0.48]) and hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.18-0.52]; rate ratio, 0.25 [0.13-0.48]). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, including patients with severe asthma and HOCS from 19 countries, and within an environment of clinical improvement, initiation of biologics was associated with further improvements across multiple asthma outcomes, including exacerbation rate, OCS exposure, and health care resource utilization.

Response to Bronchodilators Administered via Different Nebulizers in Patients With COPD Exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: The recommended treatment of COPD exacerbations includes administration of short-acting bronchodilators that act to reverse bronchoconstriction, restore lung volumes, and relieve breathlessness. In vitro studies demonstrate vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs) provide greater drug delivery to the airway compared to standard small-volume nebulizers (SVNs). We examined whether the physiological and symptom response to nebulized bronchodilators during a COPD exacerbation differed between these 2 modes of bronchodilator delivery. METHODS: Subjects hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation participated in a comparative clinical effectiveness study of 2 methods of nebulization. Using block randomization, 32 participants in this open-label trial were administered salbutamol 2.5 mg/ipratropium bromide 0.5 mg via vibrating mesh (VMN group, n = 16) or small-volume jet nebulizer (SVN group, n = 16) on one occasion. Spirometry, body plethysmography, and impulse oscillometry were performed and Borg breathlessness scores recorded pre bronchodilator and at 1 h post bronchodilator. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. Mean FEV1 was 48% predicted. Significant changes in lung volumes and airway impedance were seen in both groups. Inspiratory capacity (IC) increased by 0.27 ± 0.20 L and 0.21 ± 0.20 L in the VMN and SVN group, respectively, between group difference P = .40. FVC increased in the VMN group by 0.41 ± 0.40 L compared to 0.19 ± 0.20 L with SVN, between group difference P = .053; and residual volume (RV) decreased by 0.36 ± 0.80 L and 0.16 ± 0.50 L in the VMN and SVN group, respectively, between group difference P = .41. The VMN group had a significant reduction in Borg breathlessness score, P = .034. CONCLUSIONS: Greater improvement in symptoms, and larger absolute change in FVC, was observed in response to equivalent doses of standard bronchodilators administered by VMN, compared to SVN, but no substantial difference in change in IC.

Cliques within the crowd: identifying medical conference attendee subgroups by their motivations for participation.

Conferences enable rapid information sharing and networking that are vital to career development within academic communities. Addressing diverse attendee needs is challenging and getting it wrong wastes resources and dampens enthusiasm for the field. This study explores whether, and how, motivations for attendance can be grouped in relation to preferences to offer guidance to organizers and attendees. A pragmatic constructivist case study approach using mixed methods was adopted. Semi-structured interviews completed with key informants underwent thematic analysis. Survey results outlining attendees' perspectives underwent cluster and factor analysis. Stakeholder interviews (n = 13) suggested attendees could be grouped by motivations predictable from level of specialisation in a field and past engagement with conferences. From n = 1229 returned questionnaires, motivations were clustered into three factors: learning, personal and social. Three groups of attendees were identified. Group 1 (n = 500; 40.7%) was motivated by all factors. Group 2 (n = 345; 28.1%) was mainly motivated by the learning factor. Group 3 (n = 188; 15.3%) scored the social factor highest for in-person conferences and the learning factor highest for virtual meetings. All three groups expressed a preference for hybrid conferences in the future. This study indicates that medical conference attendees can be clustered based on their learning, personal and social motivations for attendance. The taxonomy enables organizers to tailor conference formats with guidance on how to utilize hybrid conferences, thereby enabling better catering to attendees' desires for knowledge gain relative to networking.

Use of digital measurement of medication adherence and lung function to guide the management of uncontrolled asthma (INCA Sun): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value of using digital tools to assess adherence and lung function in uncontrolled asthma is not known. We aimed to compare treatment decisions guided by digitally acquired data on adherence, inhaler technique, and peak flow with existing methods. METHODS: A 32-week prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel, randomly controlled trial was done in ten severe asthma clinics across Ireland, Northern Ireland, and England. Participants were 18 years or older, had uncontrolled asthma, asthma control test (ACT) score of 19 or less, despite treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, and had at least one severe exacerbation in the past year despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the active group or the control group, by means of a computer-generated randomisation sequence of permuted blocks of varying sizes (2, 4, and 6) stratified by fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) concentration and recruitment site. In the control group, participants were masked to their adherence and errors in inhaler technique data. A statistician masked to study allocation did the statistical analysis. After a 1-week run-in period, both groups attended three nurse-led education visits over 8 weeks (day 7, week 4, and week 8) and three physician-led treatment adjustment visits at weeks 8, 20, and 32. In the active group, treatment adjustments during the physician visits were informed by digital data on inhaler adherence, twice daily digital peak expiratory flow (ePEF), patient-reported asthma control, and exacerbation history. Treatment was adjusted in the control group on the basis of pharmacy refill rates (a measure of adherence), asthma control by ACT questionnaire, and history of exacerbations and visual management of inhaler technique. Both groups used a digitally enabled Inhaler Compliance Assessment (INCA) and PEF. The primary outcomes were asthma medication burden measured as proportion of patients who required a net increase in treatment at the end of 32 weeks and adherence rate measured in the last 12 weeks by area under the curve in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analyses included all patients who consented for the trial. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02307669 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Oct 25, 2015, and Jan 26, 2020, of 425 patients assessed for eligibility, 220 consented to participate in the study, 213 were randomly assigned (n=108 in the active group; n=105 in the control group) and 200 completed the study (n=102 in the active group; n=98 in the control group). In the intention-to-treat analysis at week 32, 14 (14%) active and 31 (32%) control patients had a net increase in treatment compared with baseline (odds ratio [OR] 0·31 [95% CI 0·15-0·64], p=0·0015) and 11 (11%) active and 21 (21%) controls required add-on biological therapy (0·42 [0·19-0·95], p=0·038) adjusted for study site, age, sex, and baseline FeNO. Three (16%) of 19 active and 11 (44%) of 25 control patients increased their medication from fluticasone propionate 500 µg daily to 1000 µg daily (500 µg twice a day; adjusted OR 0·23 [0·06-0·87], p=0·026). 26 (31%) of 83 active and 13 (18%) of 73 controls reduced their medication from fluticasone propionate 1000 µg once daily to 500 µg once daily (adjusted OR 2·43 [1·13-5·20], p=0·022. Week 20-32 actual mean adherence was 64·9% (SD 23·5) in the active group and 55·5% (26·8) in the control group (between-group difference 11·1% [95% CI 4·4-17·9], p=0·0012). A total of 29 serious adverse events were recorded (16 [55%] in the active group, and 13 [45%] in the control group), 11 of which were confirmed as respiratory. None of the adverse events reported were causally linked to the study intervention, to the use of salmeterol-fluticasone inhalers, or the use of the digital PEF or INCA. INTERPRETATION: Evidence-based care informed by digital data led to a modest improvement in medication adherence and a significantly lower treatment burden. FUNDING: Health Research Board of Ireland, Medical Research Council, INTEREG Europe, and an investigator-initiated project grant from GlaxoSmithKline.

Comparative effectiveness of anti-IL5 and anti-IgE biologic classes in patients with severe asthma eligible for both.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Integrating digital inhalers into clinical care of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Modernizing inhaled medications through digital technology can help address persistent problems of non-adherence and poor inhaler technique in patients with obstructive lung diseases. With a growing body of supportive clinical studies, advances in digital inhaler sensors and platforms, greater support from payers and healthcare organizations, significant growth with these technologies is expected. While all digital (smart) inhalers record adherence, these are distinguished by their compatibility with commercial inhalers, capabilities to guide inhaler technique, use of patient-reported outcomes, and user-friendliness for both the healthcare professional (HCP) and patient. Due to the complexity and novelty of employing digital inhalers, collaboration with multiple entities within health systems is necessary and a well-planned integration is needed. For HCPs and patients, cybersecurity and privacy are critical, it will require review by each healthcare organization. In the US, some payers reimburse for remote monitoring using digital inhalers, but reimbursement is currently unavailable in other countries. There are several models for remote patient care, as employing an active, ongoing digital interface between the HCP and patient or they may choose to only review data at clinical encounters. Personalization of therapies and feedback are key to success. While digital inhaler malfunction uncommonly occurs, patient attrition over a year is significant. Some patients will be challenged to use digital platforms or have the necessary technology. Additional research is needed to address cost-effectiveness, in vivo accuracy of inspiratory measurement capable devices, ability to teach inhaler technique, their application for monitoring lung function, and lastly real-world adoption and implementation in routine clinical practice.

A glimpse of the ERS International Congress 2022.

An overview of what to expect from the European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress 2022, including the top picks of the International Congress Programme Committee and a summary of the Early Career Member session. https://bit.ly/3tNTlgY.

Characterization of Patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry with High Steroid Exposure Who Did or Did Not Initiate Biologic Therapy.

Background: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics. Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson's chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons. Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/µL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p<0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p<0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147). Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.

Clinical utility of anti-interleukin 5 monoclonal therapy in asthma using a national, centralised, outcome-based system of drug access.

INTRODUCTION: Interleukin 5 (IL-5) inhibitors are an important therapeutic advance in the management of severe, refractory, eosinophilic asthma. However, their utilisation should be targeted to maximise their benefits. This study used multisite, centralised, national data collected over 18 months to perform an observational integrated, retrospective, cohort study of selection criteria for initiation and continuation of IL-5 inhibitor treatment in Ireland. MATERIALS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data from 230 patients who were given anti-IL-5 monoclonal therapy (reslizumab, mepolizumab or benralizumab) in Ireland between 2018 and 2020. Reimbursement of these drugs in Ireland requires fulfilling eligibility criteria defined by the Acute Hospitals Drugs Management Programme with continued reimbursement requiring ongoing submission of clinical data demonstrating clinical effectiveness. RESULTS: IL-5 inhibitor use for 18 months was associated with a total reduction in asthma-associated hospital admissions of 108 (p=0.036) and in non-hospital exacerbations of 85 in 18 months (p=0.014). Respiratory-associated GP visits were reduced from 637 in 12 months to 89 at 6 months and 210 at 18 months of treatment (p<0.001). Oral corticosteroid requirement was reduced or stopped entirely (p<0.001). Subgroup analysis of one site replicated these results and showed a significant reduction in the Asthma Control Questionnaire Score (p<0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients continued on IL-5 treatment to 18 months had significantly reduced exacerbations, GP visits, oral corticosteroid use and asthma-associated hospitalisations. These results show that anti-IL-5 therapy, in carefully selected and monitored patients with asthma, results in significant improvements in clinical outcomes in a real-world setting.